On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 8:00 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm personally fine with the current statutes, as closing a patch with RwF > explaining that there was no interest is still a feedback,
Hi Julien, Making that explanation each time we intend to close a patch "needs interest" takes a lot of time and wordsmithing. "Returned with feedback" clearly has an established meaning to the community, and this is counter to that meaning, so people just avoid using it that way. When they do, miscommunications happen easily, which can lead to authors reopening patches thinking that there's been some kind of mistake (as happened to at least one of the patches in this past CF, which I had to close again). Language and cultural differences likely exacerbate the problem, so the less ad hoc messaging a CFM has to do to explain that "this is RwF but not actually RwF", the better. > and having a > different status won't make it any more pleasant for both the CFM and the > author. "More pleasant" is not really the goal here. I don't think it should ever be pleasant for a CFM to return someone's patch when it hasn't received review, and it's certainly not going to be pleasant for the author. But we can be more honest and clear about why we're returning it, and hopefully make it less unpleasant. > My biggest complaint here is that it doesn't really do anything to try to > improve the current situation (lack of review and/or lack of committer > interest). It's not really meant to improve that. This is just trying to move the needle a little bit, in a way that's been requested several times. > Maybe it would be better to discuss some clear rules and thresholds on when > action should be taken on such patches. I think that's also important to discuss, and I have thoughts on that too, but I don't think the discussions for these sorts of incremental changes should wait for that discussion. --Jacob
